Background:

The Finnish Immigration Service is considering introducing changes to booking procedures for efficiency purposes. The scheduling process in Finland is currently manual, leading to challenges in matching availability for interview rooms, case workers/interviewers, suitable interpreters, and legal representatives. Finland is seeking information on how other countries implement procedures to potentially automate the system and reduce lengthy waiting times. 

Respondents:

26 EMN Member and Observer Countries (including BE) provided public responses to this ad hoc query. 

Results:

A preliminary analysis of the ad hoc query results shows that: 

• Although some form of automation is used in most cases, the great majority of responding countries do not use a booking system that automatically finds time slots suitable for all participants (applicant, interviewer, interpreter, and legal representative). Coordination is often done manually by case officers or dedicated units, typically prioritising the availability of the interviewer and interpreter. SE is a notable exception, reporting the use of a system that automatically finds time slots suitable for all participants registered in the system, including the public counsel. 
   
• Various methods are used to manage scheduling. Some countries, like AT, manage scheduling entirely internally, assigning appointments chronologically upon file receipt. BE uses a database to link files to specialised case workers and check interpreter/interviewer availability, though applicants and lawyers are generally not contacted beforehand. EL uses the upgraded ALKYONI II system (2023) for automatic scheduling immediately after registration, based on available slots. FR uses an automated summoning system heavily reliant on the language of the interview and the protection officer's country expertise. 
   
• Lawyers or legal representatives are permitted to participate in the interview in most responding countries. However, legal representatives generally have marginal or no direct influence over the initial scheduling, as appointments are assigned solely by the authority. Rescheduling is usually only considered if the representative provides serious and objective reasons for being unable to attend (e.g., AT, HR, CZ, IT, LT, LU, SI). In RS, the authorised representative is the primary point of contact for verification and arranging a suitable date, thereby having influence. 
   
• Several countries reported recent technological or procedural developments aimed at efficiency. FI introduced internal system developments to reduce manual work, launched an internal interpreter booking system (2024), and developed its appointment system (late 2024). FI also limited the ability of legal representatives to influence scheduling and increased the use of remote interviews. FR digitised summonses and decisions (2022) and began rolling out ‘France Asile’ regional centres, replacing the previous registration system. NL outsourced interpreter services (April 2023) and is constantly renewing its booking application to connect appointments and space less manually.

For further information, please read the compilation of answers attached above.